Snapper Stock Assessment-My thoughts

[TheRealAndy]

Gawd, you guys frustrate me!! FFS, look at that scientist who came up with walter stochastic sra model, Dr Carl Walters and also reviews the paper..

Look him up on wikipedia or something. Then look up the organisation he is involved with, the 'Sea Around Us' Project.... Something stinks... PEW...

I am stunned no one has picked up on this yet and used it to discredit the original paper.... BTW, even though PEW is in there, I still support the modelling used in the snapper assessment....(*puts on flame retardent suit).

[Big Deez]

Hi Chris
This is a quote from Walters in his "re-assessment" of the snapper fishery:


Moving to much larger size limits, e.g. 40 or even 50 cm minimum size, would be one way to maintain the current input control management approach without having to face the difficult decision analysis trade-off problem (between TAC and risk of collapse) discussed in the previous section. This is in fact the approach now being taken with groupers and snappers in Florida, and for some species (e.g. gag grouper, red snapper, red grouper, red drum) does appear to be resulting in stock rebuilding as predicted by Allen et al. However, a fairly serious negative side effect is appearing in those cases, namely increasing apparent recruitment rates leading to fishers being required to discard very high proportions (up to 90% or even 95%) of their total catches. Knowing that some substantial proportion of these discards will die, fishers are complaining ever more loudly about waste of fish, and are beginning to demand consideration of alternatives such as effort limits for recreational as well as commercial fishing.

Wouldn't this be a big problem for snapper if MLS was increased, especially in Moreton Bay? Also can you give us your version of what is meant by hyperstability?

Thanks

[honda900]

Gawd, you guys frustrate me!! FFS, look at that scientist who came up with walter stochastic sra model, Dr Carl Walters and also reviews the paper..

Look him up on wikipedia or something. Then look up the organisation he is involved with, the 'Sea Around Us' Project.... Something stinks... PEW...

I am stunned no one has picked up on this yet and used it to discredit the original paper.... BTW, even though PEW is in there, I still support the modelling used in the snapper assessment....(*puts on flame retardent suit).

Andy,

you just dont get it.. you can have the best, most complex mathmatical algorithim to work out any problem... however you put BS phone poll rubbish into the formula and what is the result.. GARBAGE..

As for the virgion BS biomass that has been calculated from 1945, these XXXXXXX can't figure a way to properly calculate the current stock levels and restort to using phone polls.... What makes you think that there was any science applied to the 1945 stuff, ie.. BigDEEZ and his mates with snorkals and a scoreboard..

Regards
HOnda.

[Big Deez]

Andy,

you just dont get it.. you can have the best, most complex mathmatical algorithim to work out any problem... however you put BS phone poll rubbish into the formula and what is the result.. GARBAGE..

As for the virgion BS biomass that has been calculated from 1945, these XXXXXXX can't figure a way to properly calculate the current stock levels and restort to using phone polls.... What makes you think that there was any science applied to the 1945 stuff, ie.. BigDEEZ and his mates with snorkals and a scoreboard..

Regards
HOnda.

Nah mate nothing to do with me - I wish I were smart enough, but no, nowhere near it. What port meeting will you be at Honda?

[PinHead]

Gawd, you guys frustrate me!! FFS, look at that scientist who came up with walter stochastic sra model, Dr Carl Walters and also reviews the paper..

Look him up on wikipedia or something. Then look up the organisation he is involved with, the 'Sea Around Us' Project.... Something stinks... PEW...

I am stunned no one has picked up on this yet and used it to discredit the original paper.... BTW, even though PEW is in there, I still support the modelling used in the snapper assessment....(*puts on flame retardent suit).

that was obvious Andy..but why bother raising it..I did a search on all of them as i did with the panel for the Green Zones and some of those on the green Zone panel are/were members of AMCS..so it is irrelevant..the Govt does not care.

[honda900]

Redlands..

As I was last time..

what meeting will you be at..

Regards
hOndda.

[TheRealAndy]

Andy,

you just dont get it.. you can have the best, most complex mathmatical algorithim to work out any problem... however you put BS phone poll rubbish into the formula and what is the result.. GARBAGE..

As for the virgion BS biomass that has been calculated from 1945, these XXXXXXX can't figure a way to properly calculate the current stock levels and restort to using phone polls.... What makes you think that there was any science applied to the 1945 stuff, ie.. BigDEEZ and his mates with snorkals and a scoreboard..

Regards
HOnda.

Actually, I do get it. And you have clearly not read/understood the assessment.

[TheRealAndy]

that was obvious Andy..but why bother raising it..I did a search on all of them as i did with the panel for the Green Zones and some of those on the green Zone panel are/were members of AMCS..so it is irrelevant..the Govt does not care.

There is a difference with this bloke though, and a lot of his work flies in the face of what our moronic australian PEW idiot stands for, and no doubt what PEW stands for in general. He aint interested in the green aspect, he is interested in viable fisheries management.

[Lovey80]

I guess though Andy when you play with the devil your going to have your reputation consistantly questioned for ever. Ie Using PEW cash for your projects.

As you say Walters is involved with The Sea Around Us Project started by a bloke called Daniel Pauly, Pauly is a member of the Board of Oceana, Oceana was set up by Pew. Walters and Pauly seem to be pretty close but who knows???

Hard to say who is who anymore. I bet large portions of world renowned marine biologists are only a few degrees of separation (if any) away from PEW charitable trust money.

Big Deez, it would NOT be a big problem if MLS change was introduced in Moreton bay. The bay is shallow water and there is no reason to suggest that large portions of returned fish will die if handled correctly in shallow water. If you actually fished MB you would know that those figures you quoted from the states are probably related as I think about 90-95% of Recreational caught Snapper are returned because they are undersize in the bay but I highly doubt a large portion are killed in the process. = MOOT Argument.

For deep water, release weights can also curb that returned fish mortality rate. I dare say that as long as the the stock was "rebuilding" the little emotional side effect of a few snapper off shore dieing would be of little concern. If Rec Anglers were that concerned about it on an emotional basis then they them selves have the option of changing to larger hook sizes to limit the catch of smaller fish that may be returned. Most Anglers will leave a location that has large numbers of banded undersize fish anyway because it is a waste of time and bait.

I can't believe that you would rubbish an option that is effectively rebuilding stock levels on an emotional basis. Feel free to stop resisting yourself from calling them Pink Sea Kittens.

NEXT!

Cheers

Chris

[Big Deez]

I guess though Andy when you play with the devil your going to have your reputation consistantly questioned for ever. Ie Using PEW cash for your projects.

As you say Walters is involved with The Sea Around Us Project started by a bloke called Daniel Pauly, Pauly is a member of the Board of Oceana, Oceana was set up by Pew. Walters and Pauly seem to be pretty close but who knows???

Hard to say who is who anymore. I bet large portions of world renowned marine biologists are only a few degrees of separation (if any) away from PEW charitable trust money.

Big Deez, it would NOT be a big problem if MLS change was introduced in Moreton bay. The bay is shallow water and there is no reason to suggest that large portions of returned fish will die if handled correctly in shallow water. If you actually fished MB you would know that those figures you quoted from the states are probably related as I think about 90-95% of Recreational caught Snapper are returned because they are undersize in the bay but I highly doubt a large portion are killed in the process. = MOOT Argument.

For deep water, release weights can also curb that returned fish mortality rate. I dare say that as long as the the stock was "rebuilding" the little emotional side effect of a few snapper off shore dieing would be of little concern. If Rec Anglers were that concerned about it on an emotional basis then they them selves have the option of changing to larger hook sizes to limit the catch of smaller fish that may be returned. Most Anglers will leave a location that has large numbers of banded undersize fish anyway because it is a waste of time and bait.

I can't believe that you would rubbish an option that is effectively rebuilding stock levels on an emotional basis. Feel free to stop resisting yourself from calling them Pink Sea Kittens.

NEXT!

Cheers

Chris

I don't think I rubbished anything especially on an emotional level. I just highlighted a section of Carl Waters' review. I'm not sure what I have ever said that makes you think i would think of snapper as pink sea kittens? Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?

This may be of some interest for you - post release survival of snapper in Port Phillip Bay. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...09.00704.x/pdf

[johnlikes2fish]

A nice example or definitionof hyperstability
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...xample&f=false
A scientist who writes a paper is fair game to all who read it so even if the scientist has associations with interest groups the methods and conclusions have to stand up.
A marine biologist who has associations with organisations that seek to ensure sustainability of marine systems, what next?

[Lovey80]

Oh I forgot to answer Big Deez question on what I though Hyperstability was.

Again I'll reiterate that I am not a scientist and If I have got this wrong then please let me know I have made the wrong assumptions. lol that may change my whole opinion of the assessment (but not the model).

Hyperstability with respect to this situation with Fisheries Snapper data is where the CPUE of the Commercial Snapper catch in this instance, showed relatively little effect on the biomass and very little drop in CPUE over the years.

The fear of the Scientists is that the data is HYPERSTABLE, meaning, that the data is showing little reduction but in fact there is sigificant reduction occuring. That being a situation completely opposite to Hyperdepletion where the CPUE is showing that fish are declining rapidly but the actual fact is not the case.

For example if only one type of lure was used to catch Barra in the stocked impoundments over years and years, the CPUE would show that the stocks were declining heavily and on the point of extinction. But we know that recruitment is stable or increasing all the time (because we are physically stocking them) and we know from these gun Barra dam anglers that catch methods become stale and need to be re-tuned all the time. So in this example there would be fantastic grounds to assume that any CPUE data collected over the last 10 years would be hyper depleted.

I tried to make my point known to this in giving my thoughts on what I would have been thinking at the time when the two different CPUE data models showed vastly different outcomes.

Imho.....There is very very good grounds for having concerns about the Gold Coast Charter data showing Hyperdepletion and NOT the Commercial Sector showing Hyperstability. I think I gave some fair reasons to assume this also, would you not agree?

Of course there is always a tendancy especially in this "Preserve" mindset era to assume that the data telling the worst scenario is closer to the mark and "remodel" other data to fit.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the two but who knows?? Assumptions were made by fisheries but not detailed as to why. Thats why I was asking in the original post: Why was there concerns of Hyperstability with the Commercial catch? What led them to believe this? Am I right in assuming what I did?

Big Deez, how did I go?

A question of you though. What are your thoughts to my opinon that using Recreational CPUE is a complete waste of time and CPUE of Commerical is a far better litmus paper to guage a stocks status?

cheers

chris

[TheRealAndy]

Oh I forgot to answer Big Deez question on what I though Hyperstability was.

Again I'll reiterate that I am not a scientist and If I have got this wrong then please let me know I have made the wrong assumptions. lol that may change my whole opinion of the assessment (but not the model).

Hyperstability with respect to this situation with Fisheries Snapper data is where the CPUE of the Commercial Snapper catch in this instance, showed relatively little effect on the biomass and very little drop in CPUE over the years.

The fear of the Scientists is that the data is HYPERSTABLE, meaning, that the data is showing little reduction but in fact there is sigificant reduction occuring. That being a situation completely opposite to Hyperdepletion where the CPUE is showing that fish are declining rapidly but the actual fact is not the case.

For example if only one type of lure was used to catch Barra in the stocked impoundments over years and years, the CPUE would show that the stocks were declining heavily and on the point of extinction. But we know that recruitment is stable or increasing all the time (because we are physically stocking them) and we know from these gun Barra dam anglers that catch methods become stale and need to be re-tuned all the time. So in this example there would be fantastic grounds to assume that any CPUE data collected over the last 10 years would be hyper depleted.

I tried to make my point known to this in giving my thoughts on what I would have been thinking at the time when the two different CPUE data models showed vastly different outcomes.

Imho.....There is very very good grounds for having concerns about the Gold Coast Charter data showing Hyperdepletion and NOT the Commercial Sector showing Hyperstability. I think I gave some fair reasons to assume this also, would you not agree?

Of course there is always a tendancy especially in this "Preserve" mindset era to assume that the data telling the worst scenario is closer to the mark and "remodel" other data to fit.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle of the two but who knows?? Assumptions were made by fisheries but not detailed as to why. Thats why I was asking in the original post: Why was there concerns of Hyperstability with the Commercial catch? What led them to believe this? Am I right in assuming what I did?

Big Deez, how did I go?

A question of you though. What are your thoughts to my opinon that using Recreational CPUE is a complete waste of time and CPUE of Commerical is a far better litmus paper to guage a stocks status?

cheers

chris

I would have to go read the paper again, but I though they provided refrences to this. When you read an academic paper, you need to also look at the references, because often critical explanations are overlooked under the assumption that the reader is, or can be made aware of the technical/academic detail.

I often get very annoyed with the crap that sunfish publishes, because they always come up with wierd stats and figures, but yet they never make reference to where they are getting this info. A paper is worthless unless you quote your sources of information.

[Lovey80]

Agreed Andy and in this day in age where papers get read mostly electronically it is easy just to wack in links to the references as they appear. That way if your not fluent in what they are banging on about you can simply click on the link read the reference and come back to it.

John,

A marine biologist who has associations with organisations that seek to ensure sustainability of marine systems, what next?

When you talk about the PEW environmental trust and similar organisations, your not talking about simply groups that "seek sustainability" These organisations are of the extreme fundamentalism that "seek" to make all harvesting of animals a thing of the past. Were not talking about sustainability issues with them (although they use that as their initial platform) were talking about them using huge amounts of money to influence political decisions that will eventually see us going down the road of complete vegetarianism and living like we were hundreds of years ago.

Good to know who is trying to do the best thing by you hey.

[Sullivan]

I'll never have a lot to say, but just got a couple of things.Up untill 25years ago anyone could take their fish to the co-op and sell,so should'nt that show as a decline in what went through the fishboard?.If ya put up a simple yes or no POLL on here (Do you think snapper stocks are in decline)would that be accurate info?Why do they need such a long closure?They tell us up here that the whole GBR only needs 2 or three 9 day closures.400t or 400.000 kilos,even if they were all 1kg fish(400.000 fish) a fish hatchery could produce that many fingerlings ten times over(japan breeds them ok).Not having to grow out the fish would mean it could be done in a average size industrial shed for less than they spent on survey paper,right on on the water no transport and rec anglers could pull up in their boat right at the front door with breeders,there is only ever going to be more people fishing as the popultion grows.Cheers Sully